alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2020320EN.01002203.xml

| 28.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 320/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 320/22

---

Order of the President of the Court of 13 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Divisional Court) — United Kingdom) — AC, TM, GM, MM v ABC Sl, XYZ Plc

(Case C-814/19) (1)

(2020/C 320/48)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 10, 13.1.2020.

---
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE

.

IN THE 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

STATE OF ARIZONA , Respondent ,

v.
JUSTIN JOHN FISHER , Petitioner

. No. 1 CA

- CR 22

- 0404 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2014

- 002573

- 001 The Honorable Sam J. Myers , Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney ’ s Office , Phoenix By Krista Wood Counsel for Respondent
Justin John Fisher , Kingman Petitioner FILED 3-21-2023STATE v. FISHER Decision of the Court

2 MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma , Judge Randall M. Howe , and Judge Anni Hill Foster delivered the following decision.

PER CURIAM : ¶1 Petitioner Justin John Fisher seeks review of the superior court’s order denying his petition for post

- conviction relief, filed pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Proce dure 32.1. This is Fisher ’s first petition. ¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or legal error, this court will not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post

- con viction relief. S ee S tate v. Gutierrez , 229 Ariz. 573, 577 ¶ 19 (2012). Petitioner has the burden to show that the superior court erred in denying the petition for post

conviction relief. See State v. Poblete , 227 Ari z. 537, 538 ¶ 1 (App. 2011)

. ¶3 This court has reviewed the record in this matter, the order denying the petition for post

- conviction relief and the petition for review. This court finds t he petitioner has not established error

. ¶4 This court grants review but den ies relief.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 823 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
H. Res. 823

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                         July 13, 2016.
Whereas, on June 28, 2016, suicide bombers attacked the Ataturk International 
        Airport in Istanbul Turkey, opened fire and detonated explosives, 
        resulting in the loss of at least 44 innocent lives and severely 
        wounding over 200, including an American citizen;
Whereas Turkish first responders and law enforcement reacted swiftly and 
        heroically, caring for the wounded and taking immediate actions to 
        prevent subsequent attacks and further loss of innocent life;
Whereas the White House issued a statement condemning the attack ``in the 
        strongest possible terms'' and states that ``We remain steadfast in our 
        support for Turkey, our NATO Ally and partner, along with all of our 
        friends and allies around the world, as we continue to confront the 
        threat of terrorism'';
Whereas the Government of Turkey has stated militants from the Islamic State of 
        Iraq and Syria (ISIS) are responsible for the attack, and this attack 
        resembles those carried out by ISIS in other parts of the world;
Whereas the loss of innocent lives in Istanbul strengthens our shared resolve to 
        defeat ISIS and its terrorist affiliates, which pose a growing threat to 
        international peace and stability;
Whereas Turkey is a longstanding member of NATO and has played a crucial role in 
        transatlantic security since joining the alliance more than half a 
        century ago; and
Whereas we stand in solidarity with the people of Turkey in their time of 
        national mourning, ready to provide assistance in bringing to justice 
        all those involved with the planning and execution of these attacks, as 
        well as identifying and disrupting any plans to undertake similar 
        assaults in the future: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) condemns in the strongest terms the terrorist attacks in 
        Istanbul, Turkey, on June 28, 2016, that resulted in the loss of at 
        least 44 lives;
            (2) expresses its condolences to the families and friends of those 
        individuals who were killed in the attacks and expresses its sympathies 
        to those individuals who have been injured;
            (3) supports efforts to bring to justice those involved with the 
        planning and execution of these terrorist attacks; and
            (4) declares that the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) poses a 
        fundamental security threat to the United States and our allies.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
<PAGE>


                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

The Board of Directors and Stockholders
Ibis Technology Corporation:

         The audits referred to in our report dated February 4, 2000, included
the related financial statement schedule for each of the years in the three-year
period ended December 31, 1999, included in the annual report on Form 10-K. The
financial statement schedule is the responsibility of the Company's management.
Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the financial statement schedule
based on our audits. In our opinion, such financial statement schedule, when
considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole,
presents fairly in all material respects the information set forth therein.

         We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration
statements (No. 333-1174) on Form S-1, (No. 33-78440) on Form S-3, (No.
333-9237) on Form S-3, (No. 333-82497) on Form S-3, (No. 333-9239) on Form
S-8, (No. 33-81452) on Form S-8, and (No. 333-45247) on Form S-8 of Ibis
Technology Corporation of our report dated February 4, 2000, relating to the
balance sheets of Ibis Technology Corporation as of December 31, 1998 and
1999, and the related statements of operations, stockholders' equity, and
cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ending December 31,
1999, which report appears in the December 31, 1999 annual report on 10-K of
Ibis Technology Corporation.

                                                              KPMG LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
March 24, 2000
Were the lab 

results 

positive*?

Were the lab 

results 

negative*?

Were the lab 

results suspect 

by molecular 

(DNA)* analysis?

Were the lab 

results 

negative?

The field is declared positive for PCN (infested). Pressure washing and steam sanitation requirements are 

implemented for all equipment in contact with field soil. Additional regulatory requirements are implemented for 

moving commodities from the field. Growing PCN host crops (or host weed species) is prohibited**. The field is 

eligible to receive available program-sponsored eradication treatments. Without treatments the timeline to full 

eradication is at least 30 years. For deregulation, the field must complete a stepwise series of tests to 

demonstrate that the infestation has been fully eradicated. 

** As defined by Idaho Administrative Rule IDAPA 02.06.10

 

Two follow-up surveys at 

the delimiting survey rate 

are required; one survey 

must follow each of the 

next two host crops 

grown on the field.

Yes

Were the lab results 

for both follow-up 

surveys negative?

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

Pale Cyst Nematode Program 

Associated Field Deregulation Protocol

(if remaining in host crop production)

9/28/2018; Last reviewed/formatted May 2023.

Summary: A primary mechanism for a field to become regulated as an associated field is exposure to soil or other regulated articles from a pale cyst 

nematode (PCN) infested field. Pressure washing sanitation requirements are implemented for all equipment in contact with field soil. Other regulatory 

requirements are implemented for movement of commodities from the field. To become deregulated, the field must complete a series of two full-field 

delimiting surveys, each following harvest of a host crop (PCN-susceptible potatoes), at a rate of 8,000 cc soil per acre (equivalent to approximately 20 

pounds of soil per acre).

If a host crop was grown and harvested any time after the exposure event, the field is eligible to receive the first delimiting survey towards deregulation. 

If a host crop has not been grown in the field since the time of exposure, a baseline field survey at the delimiting survey rate is required as soon as 

practicable and does not count toward the two delimiting surveys following a host crop required for deregulation.

APHIS conducts the first delimiting survey toward deregulation:

The field will be 

deregulated.

Were the lab results 

inconclusive* 

OR

suspect by 

morphology*?

No

Yes

Two follow-up surveys at 

the delimiting survey rate 

are required; one of 

which must follow 

harvest of the next host 

crop grown on the field.

The field will be 

deregulated.

The field will be 

deregulated. Were the lab results 

for both follow-up 

surveys negative? 

Yes

No

Yes

No

*See ‘Regulated Field Survey and Laboratory Result Definitions’ for more information. 

APHIS conducts the 

second delimitation 

survey toward 

deregulation following 

harvest of the next host 

crop.
EXHIBIT 10.25
  
             AMENDMENT TO REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AGREEMENT
  
  
  Subject Property:   A portion of that certain parcel of real 
                      estate known as Assessors Parcel #211-40-006E 
                      and a portion of ####-##-####; located on the 
                      Northwest corner of Tatum & Dynamite Boulevards,
                      Phoenix, Arizona.
  
       This amendment hereby declares that the "Purchase Price" for the 
  Property shall be Eight Hundred Ninety Thousand and 00/100 Dollars 
  ($890,000.00).
  
       The undersigned hereby agree to said amendment and acknowledge 
  that this amendment is to be made part of the original Real Estate 
  Purchase Agreement dated the 5th day of October, 1997 between Pinnacle 
  Sonoran Desert Properties, L.L.C. ("Seller") and Giant Industries 
  Arizona, Inc. ("Purchaser").
  
  SELLER - PINNACLE SONORAN DESERT PROPERTIES, L.L.C.
  
       By: /s/ Harvey Acridge                    10-16-97
          -------------------------              --------
                                                 Date
  
  PURCHASER - GIANT INDUSTRIES ARIZONA, INC.
  
       By:  /s/ John C. Hosmar                   10-16-97
          -------------------------              --------
          John C. Hosmar, Director,              Date
          Retail Development
December 2020

There were 9 surveillance inspections conducted at 9 different sites for a total of 45 

fish sampled this month. Samples are targeted to moribund and fresh mortalities 

when possible. The water temperatures continued to decrease in response to the 

cold air temperatures. All sites with fish in the water remained Category 1 and were 

scheduled for monthly sampling. No cages were confirmed positive this month.

Date Number of 

Samples

Confirmed Positive Cages Cumulative 

Program Samples

January 2020 81 0 21967

February 2020 78 0 22045

March 2020 55 0 23000

April 2020 50 0 23050

May 2020 50 0 23100

June 2020 80 0 23180

July 2020 56 0 23236

August 2020 50 0 23286

September 2020 50 0 23336

October 2020 45 0 23381

November 2020 35 0 23416

December 2020 45 0 23461
# C_2020287EN.01002201.xml

| 31.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/22

---

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 25 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Central Administrativo Norte — Portugal) — Resopre — Sociedade Revendedora de Aparelhos de Precisão SA v Município de Peso da Régua

(Case C-643/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Directive 2014/24/EU - Public procurement - Directive 2014/23/EU - Services concessions - Absence of factual or legal material necessary to give a useful answer to the questions referred - Inadmissibility)

(2020/C 287/32)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Central Administrativo Norte

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Resopre — Sociedade Revendedora de Aparelhos de Precisão SA

Defendant: Município de Peso da Régua

Intervening parties: Datarede — Sistemas de Dados e Comunicações SA, Alexandre Barbosa Borges SA, Fernando L. Gaspar — Sinalização e Equipamentos Rodoviários SA

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Tribunal Central Administrativo Norte (Northern Central Administrative Court, Portugal) by decision of 26 July 2019 is manifestly inadmissible.

---

(1)  OJ C 399, 25.11.2019.

---
# C_2021310EN.01000501.xml

| 2.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 310/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 310/5

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Apelacyjny w Warszawie — Poland) — Mittelbayerischer Verlag KG v SM

(Case C-800/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Article 7(2) - Special jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict - Place where the harmful event occurred or may occur - Person claiming infringement of his personality rights resulting from the publication of an article online - Place in which the damage occurred - Centre of the interests of that person)

(2021/C 310/04)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Apelacyjny w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Mittelbayerischer Verlag KG

Defendant: SM

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that the courts of the place in which the centre of interests of a person claiming that his or her personality rights have been infringed by content published online on a website is situated have jurisdiction to hear, in respect of the entirety of the alleged damage, an action for damages brought by that person only if that content contains objective and verifiable elements which make it possible to identify, directly or indirectly, that person as an individual.

---

(1)  OJ C 27, 27.1.2020.

---
(FACEBOOK)

[Name of organization] is proud to partner with @USDA APHIS to support the

@Defend the Flock public education program. New resources, including checklists and 

webinars, are available to help all growers keep birds healthy and reduce the spread of 

disease. Visit usda.aphis.gov/animalhealth/defendtheflock

(insert biosecurity infographic)

(TWITTER)

We're proud to partner with @USDA_APHIS to support @Defend_the_Flock public 

education program. New resources help industry and #backyardpoultry growers keep 

birds healthy and reduce the risk that #aviandisease will spread. Visit 

usda.aphis.gov/animalhealth/defendtheflock

(insert biosecurity infographic)
#### Robert H. SMITH, Plaintiff In Error, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error.

No. A-12455.

Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma.

June 26, 1957.

*795Elmore A. Page, Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Sam H. Lattimore, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.

POWELL, Judge.

Robert H. Smith has appealed from a conviction in the court of common pleas of Tulsa County, where he was charged by information with selling William A. Long, investigator in the office of the county attorney, one-half pint of Glenmore whiskey for the sum of $2.

Long said defendant did; defendant said he did not, because when he placed the half pint on the counter, Mr. Long put out a hand with $2 in it and an officer’s badge, and arrested him. Witness Long said that he took the half pint and defendant took the money. The jury, by its verdict found for the State. See Ryan v. State, 97 Okl.Cr. 119, 258 P.2d 1208. The penalty fixed by the court was a fine of $100 and costs, and thirty days confinement in the Tulsa County jail.

Judgment affirmed.

BRETT, P. J., and NIX, J., concur.
# C_2019423EN.01004802.xml

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/48

---

Judgment of the General Court of 3 October 2019 — DQ and Others v Parliament

(Case T-730/18) (1)

(Civil Service - Officials - Article 24 of the Staff Regulations - Request for assistance - Article 12a of the Staff Regulations - Psychological harassment - Scope of the duty to provide assistance - Removal measure - Duration of the administrative procedure - Liability - Non-material damage)

(2019/C 423/61)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: DQ and 11 other applicants, whose names are listed in the annex to the judgment (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: E. Taneva and T. Lazian, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 270 TFEU seeking compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicants essentially as a result of inappropriate handling of their request for assistance concerning psychological harassment ascribed to their line manager.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Orders the European Parliament to pay to DQ and the other applicants, whose names are listed in the annex, an overall amount of EUR 36 000, to be divided amongst them, in respect of the non-material damage suffered, together with interest, from the date of 13 December 2017, at the rate set by the European Central Bank for its principal refinancing operations, increased by three and a half percentage points, until the date of payment by the Parliament of the amount of EUR 36 000; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Orders the European Parliament to pay to DQ and the other applicants, whose names are listed in the annex, an overall amount of EUR 36 000, to be divided amongst them, in respect of the non-material damage suffered, together with interest, from the date of 13 December 2017, at the rate set by the European Central Bank for its principal refinancing operations, increased by three and a half percentage points, until the date of payment by the Parliament of the amount of EUR 36 000;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders the Parliament to bear its own costs and to pay half the costs incurred by DQ and the other applicants, whose names are listed in the annex; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Parliament to bear its own costs and to pay half the costs incurred by DQ and the other applicants, whose names are listed in the annex;

| 4. | Orders DQ and the other applicants, whose names are listed in the annex, to bear half of their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders DQ and the other applicants, whose names are listed in the annex, to bear half of their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 54, 11.2.2019.

---
# C_2021044EN.01001001.xml

| 8.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/10

---

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 2 de Madrid — Spain) — ZA, AZ, BX, CV, DU, ET v Repsol Comercial de Productos Petolíferos SA

(Case C-716/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Competition - Final decision of a national competition authority finding a practice restrictive of competition - Scope of the probative value of the facts examined and established - Lack of sufficient details concerning the factual and regulatory context of the dispute in the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need to reply to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2021/C 44/14)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 2 de Madrid

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: ZA, AZ, BX, CV, DU, ET

Defendant: Repsol Comercial de Productos Petolíferos SA

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 2 de Madrid (Commercial Court No 2, Madrid, Spain) by decision of 29 July 2019 is manifestly inadmissible.

---

(1)  OJ C 423, 16.12.2019.

---